kennedy assassination

[Doctor X]

Check the Obama thread.

Threads wander as threads will.

Meditate upon this wisdom now. . . .

Yours omnisciently,

--J.D.

[jimarilyn]

Hi

Methinks you need to get back on track. What on earth have any of the last 13 or 14 postings got to do with the JFK assassination ?

[plang]

Gotta agree with you there Doc, despite our differences.
The only 'raw deal' Tyson got was an uncooked ear.

[Doctor X]

Regarding Tyson, I paraphrase a commentator at the time, "if he's guilty he should get 20 years, if he's innocent he should get 15."

Dealing with a man who punched out old ladies for their money. On my long list of "Things I Should Have Sympathy for," Mike Tyson is right below "Hitler's rancid piles" and above "Roger Clemens."

--J.D.

[dougie]

Methinks Mike Tyson got a raw deal too.He came from the wrong side of the tracks,whereas a certain posturing tart didnt..in my opinion....and it is only my opinion of course.
regards

[plang]

Oh, and by the way, the answer is 'P' as in politics, there was interference by the higher-ups. Better to let him off than deal with riots nation wide such as the L.A. Riot over whats his name...King.

[plang]

Regardless, Paul Newman in 'Coolhand Luke' blasts them all!
And Steve McQueen in Papion.
The O.J. movie, yet to be released, should be a real eye opener as to his innocence.

[dougie]

As in so many of these "celebrity" trials today,its not a case of innocence or guilt any more. More a case of who has the best lawyer......my personal favourite was Irving Kanarek,he could drag petty issues out for weeks and get the jury to a state of complete disinterest.If my memory serves me right he was part of the Manson defence team.And im pretty sure it was he ,while defending a family member accused of breaking out of prison,came out with the unique defense that criminals had broke into the prison and kidnapped the accused. They threw away the mould after they created him...mores the pity.
regards

[Doctor X]

Racist jury wanting to stick it to the man.

Who chose the jury?

Who presented the evidence in such a way that insomniacs fell asleep?

As a Florida prosecutor put it--who is hardly an O.J. apologist--"poor prosecutors always blame the jury."

Clark and Darden really had no idea what they were up against. Fame played a part in that O.J. could afford the legal representation that could nail them. Hence you have Clark whimpering later that "most defendants" in his situation would have plead out to avoid the death penalty and retain some hope of getting out.

O.J. was not "most defendants." He was rich.

As Chris Rock put it, "if it was 'Orenthal J. Simpson, the bus driver,' it would be 'Orenthal J. Simpson convicted double-murderer!"

Clark and Darden came to what they thought was a soft-ball match and found the 2007 Red Sox.

--J.D.

[sdreid]

Racist jury wanting to stick it to the man.

[Doctor X]

The answer is "C."

Rather obvious, but I imagine some wish to read into things.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[jason_c]

Alley, if it is that simple, then how come O.J. was not convicted?

Celebrity?

Race card?

Poor prosecution?

[plang]

Alley, if it is that simple, then how come O.J. was not convicted?

[Ally]

Sigh. Yes Manson would have been found guilty today because he was convicted of CONSPIRACY to commit murder. As conspiracy to murder someone is the same thing as murder if the plan goes through, you are found guilty by being responsible for the act, even if your knife wasnt' the one that sliced flesh. Manson, was convicted of CONSPIRACY, which carries responsibility for the act and is therefore murder.

So yes, he would still be convicted today, Tom.

[plang]

Hellow Siggy. Welcome back.